Allahabad High Court

VISHAL KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 May 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence are upheld because the appellant has already served the full term of imprisonment.

Summary

The appellant, Vishal Kumar, was convicted under Sections 498‑A and 304‑B of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, receiving rigorous imprisonment and fines. He filed a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence, alleging evidential infirmities. While the appeal was pending, the appellant completed the entire term of imprisonment, including default sentences, as shown by a custody certificate. The appellant then sought to have the conviction set aside or, alternatively, to have the sentence deemed served, indicating he did not wish to press the appeal on its merits. The High Court observed that the full sentence had been served, that further examination of evidence would serve no useful purpose, and consequently upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

What is the effect of an appeal when the appellant has already served the entire sentence imposed by the trial court?
Can a conviction be set aside or a sentence deemed served after the full term of imprisonment has been completed?

Legislation cited

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 304-B, 498-A

Subjects

criminal appeal
conviction
sentence served
moot appeal
Section 498-A
Section 304-B
Dowry Prohibition Act
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2606 of 2021

Vishal Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Saxena, Sushil Kumar Pandey,
Yagyadhar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Pal, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rahul
Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Jai Prakash Tripathi,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.

2. This Jail Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated
April 22, 2021 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge, Court
No.3, Pilibhit in Session Trial No.84 of 2018 (State Vs. Vishal Kumar and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.585 of 2017, under Sections 498-A,
304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Pilibhit by
which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A
I.P.C. to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of
Rs.3,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine the appellant shall
undergo four months additional imprisonment; under Section 304-B I.P.C. to
undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment; and under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith
fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine the appellant
shall undergo two months additional imprisonment.

3. The appeal has been filed, challenging the conviction and sentence of
appellant on various grounds including earliest infirmities in appreciation of
evidence of failure to consider certain material contradiction in the testimony
of witnesses.
CRLA No. 2606 of 2021
2

4. During the pendency of this appeal, it is brought to the notice of this Court
that the appellant has already undergone the entire period of sentence
imposed by the trial court. In this regard learned counsel for the appellant
has drawn the attention of this Court towards the custody certificate of the
appellant dated July 15, 2023, according to which the appellant has
completed 6 years one month and 28 days as on July 15, 2023 and by now
the appellant has completed his entire sentence including the default
sentence.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not wish to press the appeal on
merits as the appellant has already completed his entire sentence including
the default sentence and prays that conviction may be set aside or in the
alternative, the sentence may be deemed to have been undergone.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent on the
strength of custody certificate submits that the appellant has completed his
entire sentence including the default sentence by now.

7. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of both parties,
the appeal has been pending for a long time and as per the custody report
dated July 15, 2023 from the concerned jail authority, the appellant has
served all the imprisonment imposed by learned trial court.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances of the case where the entire sentence has
already undergone and considering the nature of offence and the fact the
appellant has already served out his entire sentence including the default
sentence, no useful purpose would be served by entering into a detailed
examination of evidence at this stage.

9. Since the appellant has already undergone the full period of sentence
including the default sentence pursuant to order passed by the trial Court,
therefore, nothing further survives in this appeal for adjudication as the
learned counsel for the appellant does not wish press on the merits of the
appeal. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial
CRLA No. 2606 of 2021
3

Court is hereby upheld.

10. The appeal is dismissed.

11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the jail authorities
concerned through Registrar (Compliance) of this Court.

12. A copy of this judgment alongwith the trial court record be transmitted to
the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be
submitted to this Court, at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the
compliance report on record.
May 8, 2026
Dev
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DEV PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…